I've read the most recent syntax/grammar draft. The grammar specification is
very confusing, but it does look quite thorough.
However, I am disappointed to still see no good justification for the decision
the WG has made w.r.t.
http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdf-ns-prefix-confusion
I think that the decision to require fully qualified attributes in all cases
(i.e. <rdf:Description rdf:ID="foo"> rather than <rdf:Description ID="foo">)
is dead wrong. But in the appendix, the only reference is to a "description"
of the decision at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001May/0
278.html which seems no more than an index of test cases given that the
decision has been made.
So is anyone privy to the mysteries of this decision willing to come forward
and explain why the convention used in XSLT, XInclude, etc. was not followed
for RDF?
--
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
XML strategy, XML tools (http://4Suite.org), knowledge management